Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:34:55 -0400 | From | Mihai Moise <> | Subject | semaphores and noatomic flag |
| |
I write this to discuss the reasons why the semop system call should have an IPC_NOATOMIC flag.
Suppose we have two processes, called client and server, which communicate through a shared memory segment and two semaphores, and need to synchonize their activities so that they don't operate simultaneously except at startup.
The server would do,
down(smephore 0)
to wait for a message from the client. When the client needs the server to execute, it would,
up(semaphore 0) /* wake up server */ down(semaphore 1) /* put itself to sleep */
after the server has completed its portion of the task, it would,
up(semaphore 1) /* wake up client */ down(semaphore 0) /* put iself to sleep */
The problem is that the two system calls make the whole process twice as slow as it needs to be, and they are both needed because the semop system call is implemented in an atomic manner. If the semop system call had an IPC_NOATOMIC flag, then the each process would only have to do one call,
semop(up semaphore 0 & down semaphore 1, IPC_NOATOMIC)
which would be interpreted in the kernel as the sequence of two system calls I have written previously.
I want to know what other people think about this idea.
Mihai - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |